Bastoni Davide, Ticinesi Andrea, Lauretani Fulvio, Calamai Simone, Catalano Maria Letizia, Catania Pamela, Cecchia Martina, Cerundolo Nicoletta, Galluzzo Claudia, Giovini Manuela, Mori Giulia, Zani Marco Davìd, Nouvenne Antonio, Meschi Tiziana
Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Via Antonio Gramsci 14, 43126 Parma, Italy.
Emergency Department, Azienda Ospedaliera di Piacenza, Via Giuseppe Taverna 49, 29121 Piacenza, Italy.
J Clin Med. 2019 Mar 13;8(3):359. doi: 10.3390/jcm8030359.
The prognostic value of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in geriatric patients is uncertain. We aimed to compare qSOFA vs. Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria for mortality prediction in older multimorbid subjects, admitted for suspected sepsis in a geriatric ward. We prospectively enrolled 272 patients (aged 83.7 ± 7.4). At admission, qSOFA and SIRS scores were calculated. Mortality was assessed during hospital stay and three months after discharge. The predictive capacity of qSOFA and SIRS was assessed by calculating the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC), through pairwise AUROC comparison, and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Both qSOFA and SIRS exhibited a poor prognostic performance (AUROCs 0.676, 95% CI 0.609⁻0.738, and 0.626, 95% CI 0.558⁻0.691 for in-hospital mortality; 0.684, 95% CI 0.614⁻0.748, and 0.596, 95% CI 0.558⁻0.691 for pooled three-month mortality, respectively). The predictive capacity of qSOFA showed no difference to that of SIRS for in-hospital mortality (difference between AUROCs 0.05, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.14, = 0.31), but was superior for pooled three-month mortality (difference between AUROCs 0.09, 95% CI 0.01⁻0.17, = 0.029). Multivariable logistic regression analysis, accounting for possible confounders, including frailty, showed that both scores were not associated with in-hospital mortality, although qSOFA, unlike SIRS, was associated with pooled three-month mortality. In conclusion, neither qSOFA nor SIRS at admission were strong predictors of mortality in a geriatric acute-care setting. Traditional geriatric measures of frailty may be more useful for predicting adverse outcomes in this setting.
快速脓毒症相关器官功能衰竭评估(qSOFA)评分在老年患者中的预后价值尚不确定。我们旨在比较qSOFA与全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)标准对老年多病患者死亡率的预测能力,这些患者因疑似脓毒症入住老年病房。我们前瞻性纳入了272例患者(年龄83.7±7.4岁)。入院时计算qSOFA和SIRS评分。在住院期间及出院后三个月评估死亡率。通过计算受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)、进行成对AUROC比较以及多变量逻辑回归分析来评估qSOFA和SIRS的预测能力。qSOFA和SIRS的预后表现均较差(住院死亡率的AUROC分别为0.676,95%CI 0.609⁻0.738和0.626,95%CI 0.558⁻0.691;汇总的三个月死亡率的AUROC分别为0.684,95%CI 0.614⁻0.748和0.596,95%CI 0.558⁻0.691)。qSOFA对住院死亡率的预测能力与SIRS无差异(AUROC之差为0.05,95%CI -0.05至0.14,P = 0.31),但对汇总的三个月死亡率的预测能力优于SIRS(AUROC之差为0.09,95%CI 0.01⁻0.17,P = 0.029)。多变量逻辑回归分析考虑了包括虚弱在内的可能混杂因素,结果显示,尽管与SIRS不同,qSOFA与汇总的三个月死亡率相关,但这两个评分均与住院死亡率无关。总之,在老年急性护理环境中,入院时的qSOFA和SIRS都不是死亡率的强预测指标。传统的老年虚弱评估指标可能更有助于预测该环境下的不良结局。